Ogo, what in the name of Odin's thundering *removed* does some random schmuck's Star Wars fansite have to do with any of the point brought up in this thread about why mechs are not practical for anything outside of making robotic pack mules?

Ogo, what in the name of Odin's thundering asshole does some random schmuck's Star Wars fansite have to do with any of the point brought up in this thread about why mechs are not practical for anything outside of making robotic pack mules?

Well no I did not use a battleship as a example I used the example of how would a ship on the ocean defend itself, When the argument of a mech being so large it would be an easy target. Like a ship on the ocean its defensive and offensive weapons would work to keep it safe along with other support vehicles.

But thats only for some huge lumbering beast of 50 feet tall. Of course if it was slow moving and not use defensive weapons it would not work.

What I suggested is something much smaller and just as deadly. As for the computations to run everything thats were the human factor comes into play a system where the human pilot controls the movement of the mech when the terrain permits a automatic system would come into play.

As for hacks well I hate to tell you most modren weapon systems all use computers. As a matter of fact anything long range uses a computer. So EVERYTHING could potentially be hacked but the only way to do that is buy recieving data so what are you going to be doing during compbat surfing the internetz for porns?

I mean these arguments are petty at best. I can make or break any weapon system by numerous methods as mentioned above.

The advantage is what I allready posted, a small higly mobile explosive and bullet proof suit that boosts the speed and mobility of a soldier and gives him superior firepower to subjugate most infantry and armored vehicles.

Also the videos I posted clearly show that the human element in SARCOS controls just about everything.

Well no I did not use a battleship as a example I used the example of how would a ship on the ocean defend itself, When the argument of a mech being so large it would be an easy target. Like a ship on the ocean its defensive and offencive weapons would work to keep it safe along with other support vehicles.

But thats only for some huge lumber beast of 50 feet tall. Of course if it was slow moving and not use defensive weapons it would not work.

What I suggested is something much smaller and just as deadly. As for the computations to run everything thats were the human factor comes into play a system where the human pilot controls the movement of the mech when the terrain permits a automatic system would come into play.

As for hacks well I hate to tell you most modren weapon systems all use computers. As a matter of fact anything long range uses a computer. So EVERYTHING could potentially be hacked but the only way to do that is buy recieving data so what are you going to be doing during compbat surfing the internetz for porns?

I mean these arguments are petty at best. I can make or break any weapon system by numerous methods as mentioned above.

The advantage is what I allready posted, a small higly mobile explosive and bullet proof suit that boosts the speed and mobility of a soldier and gives him superior firepower to subjugate most infantry and armored vehicles.

Also the videos I posted clearly show that the human element in SARCOS controls just about everything.

My point about hacking addressed the fact that most vehicles use some kind of computer system today. What I was trying to say is that you can strip down even some of the most advanced weapon systems to use them in a primitive way. While a mech's entire mobility system would have to be linked to a computer.

As for not receiving data. You won't be receiving firing co-ordinates? you won't be receiving position updates? Of course you will be receiving data. The problem with it being "explosion and bullet proof" is that the armor required to negate today's anti armor weapons would be so heavy that it would quickly cut out the mobility factor.

As for sarcos that is an exoskeleton and not a mech. Exoskeletons will never be more mobile than a human because they are built around humans and thus have the pilots limitations to consider...

They cannot be more flexible than humans because that would put dangerous strain on the pilots joints. They cannot be faster than humans because the human's limbs are strapped into it so that would again increase the rate of joint and muscle strain exponentially.

The main objective behind sarcos it would seem is to increase human lifting power. I'm assuming for use in tight spaces where loading vehicles cannot gain entry. Just because it is being developed by/with/for the armed forces does not mean they intend to weaponize it.

Like I said before there is a counter to each and evey weapons system weather that is as simple as steel core bullet or a advanced aircarft with stealth capabilities to a missile that can travel 1700 miles to it's target.

Reading your posts and those above leads me to believe many people are not up on the latest thing. Nor do thay have any grasp on future weapons or armor or anything of the sort.

Hacking really? What a joke, are you going to write code for every weapon system ( Cause they do not use a universal code and work in various ways, what might work on a MLRS might not work on anti-aircraft system.) or think that by using a computer at all you are insta-hacked or even if hacking was a posibility that your weapon system would not include some sort of protection? I think you have watched way to many episodes of BSG.

Since several companies are investing millions of R&D dollars into these suits it's just a matter of time before something viable comes rolling off the line.

Or the people with more tanks could sit back and laugh while the mechs prove inaccurate, vulnerable to distressingly small fire (maybe even down to artillery splinters) and more expensive than tanks. The only advantages of mechs come in very rough terrain, but getting them working there is near impossible.

Like I said before there is a counter to each and evey weapons system weather that is as simple as steel core bullet or a advanced aircarft with stealth capabilities to a missile that can travel 1700 miles to it's target.

Reading your posts and those above leads me to believe many people are not up on the latest thing. Nor do thay have any grasp on future weapons or armor or anything of the sort.

Hacking really? What a joke, are you going to write code for every weapon system ( Cause they do not use a universal code and work in various ways, what might work on a MLRS might not work on anti-aircraft system.) or think that by using a computer at all you are insta-hacked or even if hacking was a posibility that your weapon system would not include some sort of protection? I think you have watched way to many episodes of BSG.

Since several companies are investing millions of R&D dollars into these suits it's just a matter of time before something viable comes rolling off the line.

Oh the irony. Someone who is talking about mechs being practical suggesting I am influenced by sci fi. Again Just because the military has spent time developing something does not mean they intend to weaponize it. Even the videos you posted showed concept drawings of the exoskeleton being used for loading purposes only. Even the one video where it was on the guy with a gun it seemed to be intended only to allow him to carry a heavier load.

Once again an exoskeleton is not a mech and is not capable of higher mobility than the soldier strapped into it. I'm not up on the latest thing? Neither are you. All you have posted are publicly available promotional videos made by the companies developing these things. You have given no evidence that they intend to be weaponized or even how they could be weaponized.

Your argument so far has been that a mech is highly mobile. You then proceeded to post videos of prototype exoskeletons. Which you would seem to agree with me can't be all that mobile as you didn't address that part of my post.

This is all besides the fact that even IF these things became viable it would be far too expensive to send into battle anyway.

That is sorta bordering on uncanny valley territory. It even stumbles like a human.

Well it is easier to build something that we can easily relate to then work around and find a new way. It is designed after the human body, with assisting disabled people not far from its intended purpose.

Well it is easier to build something that we can easily relate to then work around and find a new way. It is designed after the human body, with assisting disabled people not far from its intended purpose.

Oh the irony. Someone who is talking about mechs being practical suggesting I am influenced by sci fi. Again Just because the military has spent time developing something does not mean they intend to weaponize it. Even the videos you posted showed concept drawings of the exoskeleton being used for loading purposes only. Even the one video where it was on the guy with a gun it seemed to be intended only to allow him to carry a heavier load.

Once again an exoskeleton is not a mech and is not capable of higher mobility than the soldier strapped into it. I'm not up on the latest thing? Neither are you. All you have posted are publicly available promotional videos made by the companies developing these things. You have given no evidence that they intend to be weaponized or even how they could be weaponized.

Your argument so far has been that a mech is highly mobile. You then proceeded to post videos of prototype exoskeletons. Which you would seem to agree with me can't be all that mobile as you didn't address that part of my post.

This is all besides the fact that even IF these things became viable it would be far too expensive to send into battle anyway.

Yes, by all means your hacking idea is a really bad BSG ref.

In one of the the videos you also can see a model of a body armor. Which "is" what the intention of the system is eventually.This was part of a U.S. Army display. By the way that gun happens to be the XM-307 Info.

You have to start somewhere in the development of a vehicle, the Wright brothers did not attempt to build a F-22 right off the bat. So if it's great for lifting "stuff" that is a start and a way to get a contract to fund further development.

As for your poking fun of the videos this is what is released to the public anything else would be illegal to share. This was the video availible for public posting. As for weaponizing it you must have not seen the armored suit in the back ground or maybe did not do anything beyond watching what I posted.

Mobile? what do you want the guy to do Tap dance, maybe run the Ninja Warrior course? In the video the guy jogs around, runs, throws punches, does push-ups and and moves very well.

Expensive are you kidding? We have 4.5 billion dollar ships, 1.2 billion dollar bombers, jet fighters that cost between 55 and 150 million dollars each and tanks that run 6.2 million each. I do not see price being an issue.

Here's how I am going to sum this up, I'm right, and you are not willing to learn end of discussion with your narrow minded oppinion.

In one of the the videos you also can see a model of a body armor. Which "is" what the intention of the system is eventually.This was part of a U.S. Army display. By the way that gun happens to be the XM-307 Info.

You have to start somewhere in the development of a vehicle, the Wright brothers did not attempt to build a F-22 right off the bat. So if it's great for lifting "stuff" that is a start and a way to get a contract to fund further development.

As for your poking fun of the videos this is what is released to the public anything else would be illegal to share. This was the video availible for public posting. As for weaponizing it you must have not seen the armored suit in the back ground or maybe did not do anything beyond watching what I posted.

Mobile? what do you want the guy to do Tap dance, maybe run the Ninja Warrior course? In the video the guy jogs around, runs, throws punches, does push-ups and and moves very well.

Expensive are you kidding? We have 4.5 billion dollar ships, 1.2 billion dollar bombers, jet fighters that cost between 55 and 150 million dollars each and tanks that run 6.2 million each. I do not see price being an issue.

Here's how I am going to sum this up, I'm right, and you are not willing to learn end of discussion with your narrow minded oppinion.

I wasn't poking fun at the videos I was poking fun at you thinking you know the "latest thing" because as you said yourself the latest thing would be illegal to share. Ships, fighters and bombers are acceptable money sinks because they encompass multiple roles. They can also be refitted to serve another role once they have been outmoded by a better model. An exoskeleton serves only to enhance the capabilities of a single soldier. Once this technology does become viable it will take off so fast that by the time a suit is even decided on there it will be two generations behind. What is more likely is as I suggested a drone walker fitted with everything you are talking about. Why take the risk of losing both an expensive machine and a highly (and expensively)trained pilot when you could just risk the machine. Will we see exoskeletons on the field eventually? Yes. Will their role be limited to engaging infantry because any armor that is light enough to fit on one would be easily defeated by any vehicle mounted weapon? Yes. Will drone technology be seen as a much better solution than manned exoskeletons by the time this becomes anywhere near field ready? Yes.

Is the XM307 a cancelled project and anything attached to it likely to be cancelled as well? Yes, one thousand times yes. The oblivious to irony parade continues this next float is entitled "accusing someone of not being up to date on current technology while posting info about a project that was scrapped years ago."

I posit that it is you who is making an outlandish Crysis reference as I do not, have not and will not ever watch battle star gallactica or any of it's trite off-shoots.

Actually the topic was about Mechs my post was about something more practical.

As for the XM307 that was in response to your comment about Raytheon not developing an armed or armored variant when this is clearly the goal of the program.

A program which judging by the armament hasn't seen progress in four years. For all we know that mock-up could be nothing more than a promotional tool for a recruitment drive at the time. Yo if you are going to concede defeat don't do it in the form of a PM accusing me of trolling.